STOCKBRIDGE ENERGY, LLC v. TAYLOR, 2015 OK 61

Stockbridge Energy sued Taylor, Groninger, and Taylor Drilling Corp. in 2003 for breaches related to an oil & gas partnership and alleged misappropriation and secret transactions.
Taylor and Groninger specially appeared and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the trial court granted the unopposed motions on August 17, 2004, without specifying a time to amend.
More than four years later (2009) Stockbridge moved for leave to amend and reasserted claims against Taylor and Groninger (and added Bomberger); the trial court allowed amendment by a deadline.
The individual defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment in 2012, holding the individual claims were barred by the prior unopposed dismissals and that veil-piercing allegations failed.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding defects in the original petition were correctable and that § 2012(G) required the trial court to set a time for amendment; certiorari was granted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals, holding that amendment after more than four years exceeded the one-year savings clause and applicable statutes of limitation, and affirmed the trial court judgment dismissing the individuals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court's dismissal without specifying a time to amend violates 12 O.S. § 2012(G) and permits amendment after long delay	Kelly requires only a "reasonable time" to amend; Stockbridge argued the dismissal was interlocutory and amendment was permitted even after years because the court later set a deadline	Defendants argued the dismissal was final as to individual claims after lengthy delay and plaintiff cannot revive claims after statutes of limitation/savings clause expired	Held: § 2012(G) contemplates a reasonable time to amend, but that reasonable time cannot exceed applicable statute of limitations or the one-year savings clause; trial court dismissal was proper
Whether plaintiff may amend to rejoin defendants more than one year after dismissal when statutes of limitation have run	Stockbridge contended the trial court later allowed amendment and thus claims remained viable	Defendants argued amendment after four years exceeded the one-year savings clause and relevant limitations periods, so claims are time-barred	Held: Amendment more than four years later exceeded the one-year savings clause and the longest applicable statute of limitations (three years); amendment barred and dismissal affirmed

Kelly v. Abbott, 781 P.2d 1188 (Okla. 1989) (held trial court must allow a "reasonable time" to amend under § 2012(G); application limited by statutes of limitation and savings clause)